A Formative Evaluation of a Task-based EFL Programme for Korean University Students

CHAPTER 5: NEEDS ANALYSIS

5.2.1 Objective needs analysis

Initial "objective" needs
analyses focused on identifying learners' real world communicative requirements
so that courses could be designed reflecting these and preparing users
for their intended use of the target language (TL). Munby's model (1978)
is the most well-known of this type, and became "An unavoidable
reference point" (Tudor 1996:66), though
West (1994) mentions that its rigour and complexity "tended
to halt rather than advance development", and Tudor notes that it deals
only with target situation analysis (TSA), ignoring deficiency analysis
("present situation analysis" - PSA, cf. Allwright
1982), strategy analysis (Oxford 1990)
and means analysis (West 1994;
Tudor 1996). Munby's model contained nine components, relating to
the learners' communicative requirements (participant, purposive domain,
setting, interaction, instrumentality, dialect, target level, communicative
event, and communicative key), and Tarone & Yule
(1989) later covered much the same ground with a four-level framework:
i) global level (situations, participants, communicative purpose, target
activities); ii) rhetorical level (organisational structure of the communicative
activities); iii) grammatical-rhetorical level (linguistic forms required
to realise the forms in level ii); and iv) grammatical level (the frequency
of grammatical and lexical constructions in the target situation). Both
models imply that a needs analysis should progress from an identification
of learners' target language needs, to an analysis of the communicative
activities they will need to perform in order to achieve those goals,
and the linguistic forms by which these activities will be realised
(Tudor 1996:72).

As recognition grew in the 1980's and 1990's of the existence and importance
of psychological, cognitive, cultural and affective learning needs, a
"subjective" interpretation
arose in
which needs are seen
in terms of the learner as an individual in
the learning situation
(Brindley 1984a:63),
and attention was given to "factors of a psychological or cognitive
nature which influence the manner in which learners will perceive and
interact with the process of language study"
(Tudor
1996:126), categorised in terms of: i) individual
differences (introversion-extroversion, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking,
cognitive style); and ii) learning
style (psychological, cognitive, sensory differences). Along with
this expanded view of the learner, it was also acknowledged that
Robinson's (1991:21) call for the educator to access the "knowledge
and conceptual networks" involved in the students' specialist disciplines
was impractical in the majority of cases, especially at the beginning
of a course, and that instead, learners needed training in identifying
their learning needs (including specialist terms and concepts) and formulating
them into goal-setting:

If
subjective psychological needs felt by the learner are to be taken into
account as well as objective communication needs, then some kinds of mechanisms
have to be built into the learning process which allow for systematic
consultation and negotiation between the two parties. Information has
to be exchanged about roles and expectations. (Brindley
1984a:72-73)

Such
a "mechanism" implies not only ongoing learner training in identifying
learning needs, setting learning goals, planning a course of study, and
reflection (self-assessment and reappraisal of goals), but also a change
ofroles and power structure
(Stevick 1976) as negotiation of course content and
direction leads to modification of teacher/learner expectations, and teachers
gradually transfer control of learning. This process of "learning
how to learn" and of negotiating classroom learning parameters takes time
(Brindley 1984a:76; Nunan
1988c; 1994b) and is not always comfortable for teachers or students,
as established "truths" are challenged and perhaps found inadequate.
However, problems associated with objective needs analysis (e.g. the impracticality
of obtaining sufficient pre-course data, the need for the teacher to be
an expert in the students' special fields, and the responsibility for
producing a course to meet students needs in those fields) tend to originate
from a view of the teacher as all-knowing expert and transmitter of required
knowledge, which is rarely the case in specialised ESP courses such as
English for nurses, international trade, accounting, or particle physics
(though see Widdowson's [1978a] call for English
to be used in teaching other subjects at high school level), and a joint
"exploration of the learners' needs, both by the teachers, and by
the learners themselves" (Tudor 1996:76), is more
appropriate[1].

Both objective and subjective approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.
Widdowson (1983; 1987) states that specifying precise
product-oriented needs results in restricted competence (cf.
Maley 1980; Holec 1984), and
Tudor (1996:94) points out that objective needs analyses do not make
sufficient use of the learners' own knowledge of their learning goals,
and that data collection is difficult to realise. On the other hand,
Dubin & Olshtain (1986:102) warn that
"assessment of individual needs could result
in multiple course objectives
", while Reid (1987)
and Tudor (1996) observe that most teaching methods
and teaching styles favour one set of learning style preferences over
another, and that a subjective needs analysis has to take this
into account, either by matching the teaching
style to students' preferences (similarity), or by
exposing learners to various styles to
enrich their awareness of learning options (complementarity). Thus a simple
analysis of "objective
needs
" will not produce a teaching syllabus (Richterich
1972),
but it can be a useful beginning in a two stage objective/subjective
approach
(Tudor 1996:94), in which information on learners
and their intended use of the TL is collected before or at the start of
the course, and is developed through collaborative
exploration of their communicative agendas[2]
and the process of language learning.

Brindley
(1984a:76)
points
out that negotiation "is a complex and
subtle process",
and that flexibility, understanding, co-operation and collaboration
are important aspects. He proposes a model of a learner-centred system,
including negotiation, information exchange, awareness activities, evaluation
and feedback, learning activities, and objective-setting in consultation,
all of which help the learner to become aware of and reflect on learning
needs, and to set future goals based on those needs. Brindley's model
(appendix B-16), can be seen as a continuous
needs analysis, initiating a process of learning. Notable is its cyclic
nature, and its lack of an obvious start- or end-point. Information
exchange is the traditional place at which to begin needs analysis,
but students have usually spent time in some sort of (self-)evaluation
and discussion of their learning needs prior to arriving on a course
(especially if they are participating by choice), and are typically
conscious of these concepts to some extent. Even the statement "I
am not good at English" implies a level of awareness, evaluation, feedback,
negotiation, and objective-setting on the part of the speaker, whether
this is well-informed or based on prejudice and popular learning-myths,
and whether it is used to enhance future learning or to justify its
discontinuation ("I cannot learn, so I will stop trying"). Thus
Brindley's model describes a cyclic process of investigation of objective/subjective
needs, which can be entered at any point, and which can continue during
(and after) the course.

[1]
Objective needs analyses also take no account of what the learner
can actually do (West, R., personal communication, 2000).[2]
Conceptual
and pragmatic knowledge realised in occupational, interactive, and
cultural/affective domains (Tudor 1996:94).